Well Landis is going to get screwed anyway so why not get an interesting movie script out of the mess.

If getting screwed is a finding which confirms the fact that he has tested positive for doping on two occasions, then yes he's going to get screwed.
Landis should take a page from Millar's book; he got caught doping, admitted it, and did his time. No excuses.
Landis tried everything:
tried to play us for fools (stating that drinking beer and whisky explained his astounding stage 17 performance in the TdF);
tried playing the patriotic card (hinting at a anti-US french conspiracy);
tried resorting to dirty tricks (check out the article -- velonews liked above -- to read about his business manager making a threatening call to Lemond before he testified).
But it won't wash. Like Hamilton before him, he's guilty of doping. And he's hurting the credibility of his sport, our sport, everyday that he's denying the painfullly obvious.
Shame on you, Floyd.

Did Landis try to intimidate LeMond? I thought it was his business manager, apparently without knowledge or approval by Floyd. Even then, I am not sure it is witness intimidation as we know it. It was certainly rude, though, regardless of legality.

I don't think Floyd's comments about Lemond on the website are that out of line. Lemond has had a chip on his shoulder for a number of years and frequently talks about how doping in the sport showed up at the end of his career. I think he still has some depression over what might have been if he had not had his shotgun accident and rightly so, he was a great rider. But he does come off as a bit of a whiner some times. The intimidation is way over the top, but I don't think we can be sure FL knew about it. If GL's testimony about FL's reply on coming clean is accurate it sure sounds like an admission to me.

I think the sport is just a mess. WADA is mess, USADA is a mess, the teams are a mess. Generally when you get to this state you have to blow everything up and start over. Between this trial and OP it may force that to happen.

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard and the shallow end is much too large

I'm not saying Landis is innocent or guilty-I don't know, Landis & maybe some doc(if he is guilty) are the only ones who know for sure. But I do find it interesting how Lemond's name pops up whenever an American cyclist is accused of something. I almost didn't buy my Reno because of the Lemond name on it, after he had said some accusatory (is that a real word?) things about Armstrong. I would like to see the sport go "clean", but I think we all know there is quite a bit of doping going on, with some of the recent confessions of pro cyclists. I just think it's a shame-I'd like to see everyone on an even playing field, but when it comes to big money, or a mention on the back page of the Podunk Times and being broke, we know who wins. Unfortunately, it's the fans who lose.

If getting screwed is a finding which confirms the fact that he has tested positive for doping on two occasions, then yes he's going to get screwed.
Landis should take a page from Millar's book; he got caught doping, admitted it, and did his time. No excuses.
Landis tried everything:
tried to play us for fools (stating that drinking beer and whisky explained his astounding stage 17 performance in the TdF);
tried playing the patriotic card (hinting at a anti-US french conspiracy);
tried resorting to dirty tricks (check out the article -- velonews liked above -- to read about his business manager making a threatening call to Lemond before he testified).
But it won't wash. Like Hamilton before him, he's guilty of doping. And he's hurting the credibility of his sport, our sport, everyday that he's denying the painfullly obvious.
Shame on you, Floyd.

I got the OLN (Versus) upgrade so I could watch pro cycling. Now I hardly watch it. This isn't a knock on Landis in particular. But the entire sport seems to be a mess, and I don't want to put my energy into following it these days.

It would be presumptuous of me to hold that he is guilty or innocent, however, I'd like him to be innocent. The one area Lemond touched upon in his testimony yesterday that conjures up the most negative things for me is that there is so much money at stake with the major tours that winning at any cost has become the norm. I love cycling and get sucked into following the careers of those riders with exceptional abilities. It just plain old hurts my heart and sense of innocence that doping is such an issue in this magnificant sport. Innocent or quilty this process is painful to watch.

Oh I used to be disgusted and now I try to be amused. But since their wings have got rusted, you know, the angels wanna wear my red shoes. But when they told me 'bout their side of the bargain, that's when I knew that I could not refuse. And I won't get any older, now the angels wanna wear my red shoes.

If getting screwed is a finding which confirms the fact that he has tested positive for doping on two occasions, then yes he's going to get screwed.
Landis should take a page from Millar's book; he got caught doping, admitted it, and did his time. No excuses.
Landis tried everything:
tried to play us for fools (stating that drinking beer and whisky explained his astounding stage 17 performance in the TdF);
tried playing the patriotic card (hinting at a anti-US french conspiracy);
tried resorting to dirty tricks (check out the article -- velonews liked above -- to read about his business manager making a threatening call to Lemond before he testified).
But it won't wash. Like Hamilton before him, he's guilty of doping. And he's hurting the credibility of his sport, our sport, everyday that he's denying the painfullly obvious.
Shame on you, Floyd.

Blaireau, you don't believe properly administered negative drug tests prove a rider clean. Why are you so certain a clearly botched positive test proves a rider doped? If the tests are so reliable, you ought to shut up about Armstrong. If they're not, you ought to shut up about Landis.

As for Lemond, he's a bitter, whiney, jerk, who can't stand to see his accomplishments eclipsed, and pi$$es all over anyone who might be viewed as better than he was. He whined in '85. He whined in '86. He's whining now.

Q: How can you tell when Greg Lemond is whining?
A: His lips are moving.

Starve a terrorist - ride a bike to work. It's not just good for the environment, it's good for civilization.

Stepping aside from a discussion of what was or wasn't in any racers blood or urine that day or test results or lab procedures, and talking about bike racing: the stage 17 profile was perfect for a long solo breakaway. The series of climbs and descents negated the typical pack advantage. Once Landis began to threaten, his rivals were unable to reach a consensus about sharing the work to pull him back (the classic "You chase, I'll sit in." - "No, you chase and I'll sit in.") As mentioned in the real time commetary, Landis climbed slower on average on all the stage 17 climbs than the lead group's climbs on stage 16. Have one bad day and bounce back? Not unusual in stage racing. Landis' performance wasn't expecially "astounding" physically, it was just smart, agressive racing.

Eddie Merckx, who arguably knows a few things about bike racing, is going to say this same thing on the witness stand in a few more days.

Blaireau, you don't believe properly administered negative drug tests prove a rider clean. Why are you so certain a clearly botched positive test proves a rider doped? If the tests are so reliable, you ought to shut up about Armstrong. If they're not, you ought to shut up about Landis.

Incorrect. A negative test does not make a clean rider. Just give me the time to give you (2) examples. (1) Hamilton. He won an Olympic medal. When his blood tested positive for getting someone else's blood in a tranfusion to illegaly help his performance the Olympic games asked for their medal back. But guess what, Hamilton got off on a technicality. THe B sample was inadvertently frozen. So no B sample, Hamilton got to keep his medal. Though it has no legal weight, it is my opinion that Hamilton is a fraud and should return his Olympic medal, and I won't "shut up about it." as you so nicely put it.
(2) Armstrong. His 1999 test samples were retroactively (I think it was in 2004) tested for EPO and they showed EPO use. However there were no B samples, so the tests were considered negative. I say that means little. except that he got off for procedural reasons.

But I guess it your world, when Gotti or OJ got away with murder in a court of law this meant they were innocent. Most people know better --thank god.

Stepping aside from a discussion of what was or wasn't in any racers blood or urine that day or test results or lab procedures, and talking about bike racing: the stage 17 profile was perfect for a long solo breakaway. The series of climbs and descents negated the typical pack advantage. Once Landis began to threaten, his rivals were unable to reach a consensus about sharing the work to pull him back (the classic "You chase, I'll sit in." - "No, you chase and I'll sit in.") As mentioned in the real time commetary, Landis climbed slower on average on all the stage 17 climbs than the lead group's climbs on stage 16. Have one bad day and bounce back? Not unusual in stage racing. Landis' performance wasn't expecially "astounding" physically, it was just smart, agressive racing.

Eddie Merckx, who arguably knows a few things about bike racing, is going to say this same thing on the witness stand in a few more days.

TCS

+1. The pack kept waiting for Landis to crack, and he didn't. It was bad tactics (by the pack), not good drugs, that won stage 17 for Landis.

Starve a terrorist - ride a bike to work. It's not just good for the environment, it's good for civilization.

+1. The pack kept waiting for Landis to crack, and he didn't. It was bad tactics (by the pack), not good drugs, that won stage 17 for Landis.

The post you are celabrating -- about Merckx's impending pro-Landis testimony -- announces something that is not going to happen! Its kinda, like, you guys are living in a dream world....
Merckx is on the record saying he will not testify. He also wondered why on earth he was called to do so. Not really a Landis endorsment.
As far as the stage 17 "performance." I think the positive test for that very stage tell a slightly different story then the "tactics defense." (Not quite the Jack Daniels defense in terms of sheer siliness, but close I guess he's come up with so many, you can always pick and choose one)

Incorrect. A negative test does not make a clean rider. Just give me the time to give you (2) examples. (1) Hamilton. He won an Olympic medal. When his blood tested positive for getting someone else's blood in a tranfusion to illegaly help his performance the Olympic games asked for their medal back. But guess what, Hamilton got off on a technicality. THe B sample was inadvertently frozen. So no B sample, Hamilton got to keep his medal. Though it has no legal weight, it is my opinion that Hamilton is a fraud and should return his Olympic medal, and I won't "shut up about it." as you so nicely put it.
(2) Armstrong. His 1999 test samples were retroactively (I think it was in 2004) tested for EPO and they showed EPO use. However there were no B samples, so the tests were considered negative. I say that means little. except that he got off for procedural reasons.

But I guess it your world, when Gotti or OJ got away with murder in a court of law this meant they were innocent. Most people know better --thank god.

Then why do we even bother with tests, if nobody should believe them? We trash a rider's reputation and deny him the chance to practice his profession on the basis of a clearly botched test, and we don't give riders who test clean any respect for their accomplishments.

Maybe we should just declare the top ten finishers in each race guilty of doping and disqualify them. They either doped, or they beat someone who doped, so therefore they must have cheated somehow. It would be cheaper than these useless tests, and it would be as fair to the riders as the current system.

Starve a terrorist - ride a bike to work. It's not just good for the environment, it's good for civilization.